zlacker

[return to "De-Escalation Keeps Protesters and Police Safer"]
1. coldco+v6[view] [source] 2020-06-02 01:18:18
>>oftenw+(OP)
Of course it does. But politicians who ramp up the rhetoric and threaten to have people killed does not. Flint and Camden and other cities where the police sat down or walked with the protestors have no issues. People connecting to people with understanding rarely results in violence.

I think places where the police still walk a beat (or other regular outreach over a wide area) and get to know the locals rarely have issues with regular people. But cities don't want to spend that kind of money on these things as they would rather not tax people to pay for it. Yet it's an investment in cities' future; otherwise you wind up with this.

◧◩
2. thebra+nb[view] [source] 2020-06-02 01:58:09
>>coldco+v6
"As they would rather not tax people to pay for it"

I think you may be underestimating how much cities dedicate their budgets to police spending:

"Mayor Eric Garcetti's 2020-2021 city budget gives police $3.14 billion out of the city's $10.5 billion. That's the single biggest line item, dwarfing, say, emergency management ($6 million) and economic development ($30 million)." (In fact, LAPD is getting pay raises while LA teachers are getting a pay decrease)

"New York City spends more on policing than it does on the Departments of Health, Homeless Services, Housing Preservation and Development, and Youth and Community Development combined."

"A whopping 39 percent of Chicago's 2017 budget went to police, and still the department got even more money, peaking in 2020 with a 7 percent increase to nearly $1.8 billion."

Note, this is, to the best of my knowledge, solely police, not even adjacent forces like e.g. fire departments or ambulances.

[1] https://www.gq.com/story/cops-cost-billions

◧◩◪
3. thebra+hc[view] [source] 2020-06-02 02:04:41
>>thebra+nb
Personally, I'd love California to try a ballot initiative putting a 10-15%-of-budget cap on police spending in cities. I think it could easily pass, and if NYPD's 2017 strike is any indication, crime rate could actually go down [1]. NYPD ended their strike voluntarily because city officials were recognizing that maybe they weren't as necessary, after all!

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proacti...

◧◩◪◨
4. Jommi+7t[view] [source] 2020-06-02 04:43:36
>>thebra+hc
Less spending on police, even less trained officers, great right?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. noober+cz[view] [source] 2020-06-02 05:51:11
>>Jommi+7t
Less officers overall and train the remaining officers better. Besides, given that the police already get so much money and we still have problems, it seems like throwing more money at them isn't the answer.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. lobotr+LY[view] [source] 2020-06-02 10:24:19
>>noober+cz
So you want even longer wait times for an officer to respond to your complaint of a stolen car/bike or other “quality of life” crime?

How are people thinking they will get better police service (or any police service) by reducing police budgets? Most of said budget is spent on pensions anyway from the breakdowns I’ve seen. It’s not like cops are rolling in it. Even if you rake in overtime you still have to work during that time.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. throwa+E61[view] [source] 2020-06-02 11:48:02
>>lobotr+LY
>So you want even longer wait times for an officer to respond to your complaint of a stolen car/bike or other “quality of life” crime?

But even in well funded departments the response is laughable. At best if your stolen item is serialized they will record that number and it will be recovered at a later date when they happen to bust someone for something else and catalog everything they found in the vicinity and their computer system tells them your thing was reported stolen.

>Even if you rake in overtime you still have to work during that time.

The Massachusetts State Police and their 2-5yr recurring "whoops it looks like a bunch of people were getting paid for working overtime that wasn't actually worked, we'll fire someone as a sacrificial lamb and go right back to what we were doing" scandal would beg to differ.

That said, as much as it pains me to defend them, the fact that the job can be easy money for anyone willing to step in line with the organization means that you get people who just want to slack and make easy money or want to over achieve and run a full fledged side business on company time (MSP isn't the only MA gov department where people do this but they're known internally for it) and not the people who want to LARP as soldiers and kick down doors. As a result they don't often wind up receiving allegations of excessive force.

Obviously this is by no means and ideal status quo but it's far superior to having a more violent police force.

[go to top]